Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:35, 14 August 2008

August 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2008

Misplaced Pages:BRIT → Misplaced Pages:British Isles Terminology task force

The shortcut WP:BRIT is ambigous and confusing here. This is not just a British matter. We already have other redirects for this taskforce (such as WP:BIT, WP:BITERM and WP:BRITISHISLES). British Isles is an archipelago that includes the two large islands of Great Britain and Ireland, which contain two sovereign states, the UK (Britain) and the Republic of Ireland. The taskforce was set up to deal with problems relating to the fact that the Republic or Ireland is not in Britain, nor is 'British', but part of the island of 'Ireland' - Northern Ireland - is British. WP:BRIT here simply misleads people on the whole matter, and can be seen as either a move to remove Ireland from the term "British Isles" (as some want), or a move to make Britain seem like the most important factor! It's just simply not needed, either way. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Northern Ireland is not part of Britain either: that's why the UK is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Irish are officially "British Citizens" (it's on their passports). Great Britain is the geographical name of the major island - commonly Northern Ireland is called part of Britain (in the social/political sense), and always as British. Either way, this is about the "British Isles" - which contains the Republic of Ireland which is unquestionably not British. I happen to favour the word "British Isles", but this shortcut is clearly inflammatory - it has to go. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, yes. I meant to say "not part of Great Britain" - looks like the moral is that these things are easy to get confused about! Olaf Davis | Talk 16:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see anything wrong with the redirect: BRIT could be an abbreviation for Britain or for British Isles, which as you say are two different entities. If we have no use of a shortcut for the former, why not make use of it for the latter? And if there is something about Britain which it could plausibly link to, surely a note at the top saying "For the ], see WP:Whatever" will prevent confusion. There are plenty of Wikiproject shortcuts I accidentally go to thinking they'll be something else, but they swiftly point me to the correct place and it's not worth deleting them over. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But are you happy with this ambiguity? Maybe I didn't make this clear - but this shortcut can cause serious offense in a place where people are trying to resolve serious differences. It wasn't placed in the best spirit either. A "Brit" is the common name for a British person. Irish people can get really upset by being mistakenly identified as being British. I also don't like the fact that it removes Ireland from the equation. It's just inflaming things.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There's a lot of shortcuts that have some ambiguity, but it isn't often that people are going to guess the target from the shortcut itself. -- Ned Scott 01:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not before, no! (which makes it extra pointless!) But what about after they've followed the shortcut? And what about its disruptive presence in the taskforce page? I can see people choosing not to vote here - but to actively say "keep" is really quite shocking to me. It serves no purpose at all other than a negative and disruptive one. It's called "WP:BRIT" for heaven's sake! I know the editor who made it, and why he did it - it was purely to put the cat amongst the pidgeons. Why do these places so often reward these people? There are people who want to see this taskforce fail - and all that will happen is more locked Brtish and Irish articles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is an astonishingly bad faith nom, IMHO. As the creator of the shortcut in question, I was accused (by Matt) of trolling when I did so. The reason I created it was because the only shortcut for the project at the time -(more later)- was WP:BIT. Another editor - Clubjuggle - had requested that it be released to him for an essay he is writing. Matt objected for reasons I couldn't quite understand, seeming to imply that the work of the newly formed project would be harmed by the loss of the shortcut. So I created what I felt was the most appropriate shortcut. Matt objects to it. And so he has now made his point by creating 2 more, WP:BITERM and WP:BRITISHISLES. I'd be quite happy with the former, but to me the latter is neither short nor handy and fails my tests for the usefulness of shortcuts. Matt suggests in his nom that there are "already" 3 shortcuts in place. The already is entirely disingenuous in that instance. Neither WP:BITERM, nor WP:BRITISHISLES, were "already" in use when I created WP:BRIT. Matt only created them yesterday evening. Personally I would suggest that WP:BRIT should remain until those participating in the project have there own say about its appropriateness first. Crispness (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm relinquishing BIT to the guy who has asked for it - we can use BRITISHISLES, BITASK and BISLES, and we have always had 'BIW' in preparation for the eventual BI workgroup page (which can use BRITISHISLES and BISLES as well). You made 'BRIT' to be as provacative as you possibly could! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't. You are wrong again Matt. Crispness (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Both the nominator and the original creator of the redirect have been accused of acting in bad faith. Instead of arguing about whether those accusations are true let's consider the redirect on its own merits, which should be possible to determine regardless of the motivations of either editor. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ad hominen → ad hominem

I've seen this used repeatedly on Talk pages by the same person, as the working link makes it look correct. It gives others the impression that it is the correct spelling too. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: In the cases like this is it right to redirect? I don't think it's all that wise in any case - there should be a special page for all misspellings - not a seamless redirect to the correct article! Maybe a 'Did you mean?' page that could redirect to the Wiktionary (or whatever it is called) and the main article too. A redirect simply cannot be right for clearly misspelled words like "ad hominen/m". It's just plain wrong, folks. And people's minds very often don't pick up on the difference, if anyone insists that this happens. The presence of a working link on Talk pages (as with the incorrect "ad hominen") makes people use it time and time again, and misleads others.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We do it pretty routinely for common misspellings. Sure, we'd love to educate them, but that's not really our function, and having it come up to a red link might encourage just an inferior page running in parallel. Geogre (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, misspellings are one of the listed reasons for redirects - we apparently have at least of them. This seems like a plausible misspelling, so Keep. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: "Ad hominen" is being linked-to as a form of 'policy', and this is an exceptional problem here I feel - and the difference between this and other routine misspellings. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify please: do you mean the editor in question has a deliberate policy of misspelling the word, or that he's linking to the article as though it were a Misplaced Pages policy? I'm not sure that either is grounds for deleting the redirect but at the moment I'm unclear as to exactly what you mean and hence what your objection is. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I will do this. Looking at 'what links here' on the 'ad hominen' redirect page, it is mostly just him who is diong it. I originally thought a lot of people could be doing this, bu it appears not. He certainly did confuse me (and others?) with the spelling though (and I didn't link it when I referred to it once in the misspelt way - so it wouldn't appear in the 'what links here' list). I do think I have a fair point here, but if misspellings are redirected, then they are redirected I suppose. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep We should not use red links as discouragement. --Raijinili (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Civility noticeboard → Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts

This page was originally a separate noticeboard deleted in 2006 at MfD. Given that the primary purpose of Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts is to handle matter relating to civility, I'd like to suggest this redirect be created as an alternate way to refer to the page and its purpose, without using a wikilink mask. MBisanz 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Create(?) - seems sensible enough (hey, WP:BOLD?), with the added bonus of masking the uncivil (if comical) delete log. Ian¹³/t 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Create: sounds like a good idea, and there are almost no archived redlinks to it likely to cause confusion. I don't understand what Ian13 means by masking the delete log though since deletion logs are still visible for recreated articles. Olaf Davis | Talk 19:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Create - Sure, why not? Tiptoety 20:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Why not? Are you serious? Civ N got deleted. It was a bad idea that was used badly. To put in a redirect is only to admit that this beast is the functional equivalent and to invite people like me, who think that it's also a bad idea badly used, to say so. Why not redirect WP:PAIN there, too? Geogre (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Public transport crashes → List of United Kingdom disasters by death toll

Not a valid redirect Edward (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Public transport crashes can occur anywhere; not just the UK. Juliancolton 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - They have very little to do with each, along with the fact that public transportation crashes do not just happen in the United Kingdom. Tiptoety 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:GANG → Misplaced Pages:Tag team

Clearly inappropriate target. One could make a case for WP:CABAL. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• How is this clearly inappropriate? "two or more editors work in concert in a disruptive way" sounds like a description of people 'ganging up' to me. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: "Two or more" is a "criminal organization?" Wow! I would regard two or more as cooperation, and alleging that every two or three people who disagree with you are disruptive is fantastically insulting. No. We do not need to encourage people to write personal essays about their experiences in name space, and we especially do not wish to perpetuate that embattled, nasty spirit in redirects. This is an attempt at antagonizing. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Your referring to 'criminal organisations' surprised me at first: I'd been thinking of gang as in 'ganging up' and not as in criminal gangs (I suspect this may have to do with dialectic differences: the article gang notes that the word's usage for non-criminal groups is more common in England than elsewhere). With this in mind Arthur's remark suddenly makes sense, and I wouldn't oppose the deletion. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Martinphi's comment below has convinced me that my original instinct was right: there's nothing wrong with referring to 'tag-team' editing as 'gang editing' for the reasons he gives, so Keep. Whether WP:Tag team is appropriate at all, which Arthur seems to believe it's not, is a matter to be brought up at MfD and not here. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. "Gang editing" is a used phrase, and refers to what the essay talks about- and happens from all sides of issues. While gang editing exists, I haven't heard the term used for the cabal, though I may just not have been around that. Anyway, there was no reason given for deletion. If a good reason exists, then we should hear of it. A "Gang" is 1. "An association of criminals" and 2. "An informal body of friends" and 3. "An organized group of workmen." So it applies well and don't assume only one of the meanings is the one meant, as with Utgard Loki above. Further, even thinking of it as criminal is ok, as "criminal" on WP is against policy and the spirit of the community, which this type of editing definitely is. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cite for "Gang editing" being used. No comment on whether the essay should be deleted (as I think it should) or userfied, as acting on it is almost certainly contrary to the WP:PILLARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Violates WP:NPA to start with - using that link to identify another editor is insulting at the least, and implies they are marauding about the encyclopedia smashing articles and threatening the well-being of others. Unfortunately, as I note here, the description of "tag-teaming" used in this essay can just as easily be applied to long-time, well-respected, good-faith editors who are in disagreement on a particular article. The shortcut is pejorative and is clearly intended to be so. Let's not go down this road. Risker (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Additional point to above: The word "gang" or phrase "gang editing" is never used in the essay. Risker (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

One should never do that: one should refer to an article as the victim of gang editing, not an editor as a gang editor- which wouldn't make sense anyway. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One shouldn't, but that is exactly what will happen. People will get a notice on their talk page referring them to WP:GANG or telling them that they are editing like WP:GANG. One needs to think about what will happen, not just what should happen. Risker (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SPADE is misused as well, as is WP:PEACOCK, WP:DICK, WP:DUCK, WP:POT WP:KETTLE And you are lynching Negroes, WP:MAJORDICK etc. This doesn't mean they're bad, just that uncivil editors are going to find a way. The important thing is 1) the shortcut correctly describes the behavior, and 2) the essay says not to do it, and what it is. What I'm saying is, yeah, people might use it in an uncivil manner, but that is another matter. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does not describe the behaviour. WP:GANG is an inappropriate shortcut for an essay in Misplaced Pages space. I have never seen some of those used, in particular And you are lynching Negroes and WP:MAJORDICK, and I would point out the former is actually an article and is neither a redirect, a shortcut nor something in Misplaced Pages space. WP:PEACOCK relates to content, not contributor. Of the rest, not one of those shortcuts implies violence or mayhem on the part of the editor being tagged. Risker (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But gang editing is violence and mayhem to the wiki space. It's a matter of the content of the essay, not the redirect. But they are subject to the same abuse: "Don't be a gamer/peacock/dick, and "Please don't lynch everyone," "you can get with it or fuck off, with this last having the added appeal of plausible deniability when accused of incivility. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:POVPUSH Another ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<---(unindent) Sorry Martin, but I do not believe that there is any evidence that "gang editing" is in any way an accepted term at Wikipiedia. And exactly how do people writing on a computer keyboard inflict violence? By hitting the keys extra hard? Really now. Risker (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As explained above. Also, you could read the essay for an answer to that. But it is not that I have to prove it is an acceptable term. It is that you have to prove it isn't: WP is not here to be a censor, and if the term applies, as the definitions above make clear it does, then there is no reason not to use it. I do not believe that the potential for incivility is a good reason to delete it, any more than it is a good reason to delete the above examples. Which is why I gave the above examples. It seems fine according to WP:REDIRECT, especiall number 5 . However, it is not an intrinsically insulting or negative redirect, thus does not meet that standard. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not seeing it. When I think gang I think group. Violent gangs do come to mind as well, but so do a lot of things. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

  If the people to whom it is directed are offended, then why keep it? It's just a redirect. Redirects are cheap. Most people are saying, "I think it might mean 'ganging up'" -- well, delete this, then, and institute "GANGINGUP." This is weird thinking. Geogre (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is against the spirit of consensus building and collaborative editing. The current discussion about GANG and "tag-teaming" seems to be implying that consensus building and collaborative editing is a bad thing. But the whole point of Misplaced Pages is that it is a collaborative project. Alun (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This seems to me like an argument for deleting WP:Tag team, rather than for deleting the redirect given that WP:Tag team exists. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I am considering putting the essay Misplaced Pages:Tag team up for deletion. Alun (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the essay might be inappropriate, however, that shouldn't be up for discussion here given that the redirect is fine. You say "tag-teaming", we say "ganging up", let's call the whole thing off. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gratuitous → Gratis versus Libre

"Gratuitous" (unnecessary) appears to be confused with "Gratis" ("free") .CrispMuncher (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - there's no such thing as 'free as in insult'"! Interestingly it originally went to free and was changed, suggesting two editors made the same mistake. Olaf Davis | Talk 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I've seen a few editors who might be happy with this one! Perhaps it's an ironically subtle way of criticising WP like WP:CIV.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)